Author
Topic: The 99% (Read 20212 times)

Why do you keep repeating the same erroneous statement "the 1% pays less than the 99%"??

It is just plain wrong. It is only propaganda, repeated over and over so that the ignorant masses will get angry. Please stop.

In some cases some of the 1% may pay a lower rate, which I'd say is probably rare, but there is no way that the 1% pays less than the 99%. Unless you are talking about the bottom 1%. Without that top 1%, us 99% wouldn't have roads, protection, etc, much less a government.

Here's a look at individual tax rates and shares by income in 2007, the most recent data available from the Internal Revenue Service:

•The top 1 percent: Americans who earned an adjusted gross income of $410,096 or more accounted for 22.8 percent of all wages. But they paid 40.4 percent of total reported income taxes, an increase from 39.9 percent in 2006, according to the IRS.

•The top 5 percent: Americans who earned $160,041 or more accounted for 37.4 percent of all wages in 2007. But they paid 60.6 percent of the country's total reported income taxes, up from 60.1 percent a year earlier.

•The top 10 percent: Americans who earned at least $113,018 paid 71.2 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 70.8 percent a year earlier.

•The top 25 percent: Americans who earned at least $66,532 paid 86.6 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 86.3 percent a year earlier.

•The top 50 percent: Americans who earned at least $32,879 paid 97.1 percent of the nation's income taxes, up from 97 percent a year earlier.

•The bottom 50 percent: Americans who earned less than $32,879 paid 2.9 percent of the nation's income taxes, down from 3 percent a year earlier.

i'm sorry. you are upset the the top 1% only pay 40% of the total taxes....so your 99% has to make up the other 60%. wow! that's fair for you! please explain why this upsets you and why you think they should pay more....and for what? as a % of the population, they have the highest tax burden. at what point have they paid their "fair share"?

lets say you get your way and those in the higher brackets are taxed more. what do you want done with that money?

Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

you need to get off MSNBC and do some real research.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Thanks for the link, BlueBee...this is the little I was able to glean there. And it verifies what Kathy wrote.

Total Taxes(Millons)1,031,512

Top 1%392,149 (38% of taxes)

Top 5%605,718 (59% of taxes)

Top 10%721,421 (70%)

Top 25%890,614 (86%)

Top 50% 1,003,639 (97%)

So the top 1% are carrying 40% of the load already. I'd guess that there is not anybody in that 1% that is paying LESS TAXES than anybody in that 99%. The top 5% are carrying 60% of the income tax load.

Warren Buffet is already paying 7-12 MILLION in just INCOME TAX. I KNOW that he doesn't pay his secretary that much, much less give her/him a wage that would require that kind of taxes.

There aren't too many people on OWS in the 97% of taxes paid group, I'd guess. Most of the money they're mooching is coming from that top 5%, the ones they want to pay more.

he's not, though and that's what makes his argument a joke. by choice, he takes a small salary. his income tax is based on that salary. most of his "income" is from dividends. dividends are taxed at a different rate, and are purchased either with already taxed income or reinvestment of dividends.

any way you slice it, he pays on the dividends twice but his taxes on income (salary) are low....because he's not paid much.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

i just want to know what the left wants to do with the extra money they want to get from the rich. they always talk about taking it. how do they want to spend it?

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Speaking only for myself, I’m sick and tired of living in debt since Reagan and the Republicans took over. I would vote to use any new revenue to pay down the debt the Republicans have been accumulating all these years.

Do we need a calculator from Tennessee to compute how much of our tax payers dollars go just to paying off the interest every year? You might need some more fingers….

Most of the 1% know how the game is played. Heck they invented it! Some have their “salaries” set to $1 a year as a pure PR joke to fool the masses. Evidently the masses are pretty easy to fool. These guys don’t make their big money on salary or even dividends. They make their big money on subsidized stock options and grants.

Heck, I would gladly work for free for a ton of stock options. When that stock is then held for more than a year, they get taxed at 15% whereas the tax rate for “normal income” in that bracket is 35%. If you’re an average Joe or Jane, busting your butt everyday, you pay 25% or 28%. So you’re paying almost double the tax rate as the big dogs. Fair and balanced? You tell me?

A little history lesson. Spending bills are written in the House Of Representatives. The Democrats controlled Congress for forty years I think until 1994.Reagan had a "democrat" Congress.There was never even the thought of a balanced budget until Clinton was pressured by the Contract with America.There was more money spent by Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress in the two years they controlled all three branches,than was spent by all previous administartions combined. Reagan got a lot of people back to work. Reagan pushed for a stronger America. Reagan inspired people to do for themselves,not look to what the government should be doing for you. Tip O'neill could not resist the urge to spend the extra revenue that went to the treasury generated by the tax cuts that were put in place.If that extra revenue could have been spent paying off debt instead of socail programs,we may not be having this crisis now.

And if I remember correctly,I don't think any grocery accepts stock options for payment at the register. And the lower income people do not pay any taxes on the first 10,000 or so of income. And I also know many unmarried people with children living together claiming to be single people with dependent children. dads income is not included so Mom gets not only all of tax money back,but the gift of several thousand dollars of EIC. These are some of your 99 percenters,but we will sweep this fraud under a rug. This is called social engineering with the tax code.And the people who do not see this are the clear and present danger to the fabric of our society.

now...lets bring this pay down the debt thing to a level that doesn't cross our eyes.

if you make 100 dollars a month, but spend 140, you are going to have a huge debt in short order. you are engaged in deficit spending to the tune of 40 dollars a month. if you come to me and as for an extra 5 dollars a month, will that help you get out of debt if you continue to spend at the same rate? no, it will not. in addition, i would be foolish to give you that extra 5 dollars a month knowing that you were still being irresponsible in your spending.

in the same way, taxing the rich more, will not help one bit with the debt if the spending is not stopped. asking me to pay more while the government still spends, is criminal. it is theft of my money and waste. if you took 100% of the money the wealthy earn it would not put a dent in the debt. it would barely decrease the rate of growth in the deficit even if spending were not increased, because of the interest owed on what has been borrowed.

so what is this call to tax the rich? it is simple. it is about redistribution. it has nothing to do with debt or deficit. it has everything to do with punishing success in the name of "fairness". i have it. you want it.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Speaking only for myself, I’m sick and tired of living in debt since Reagan and the Republicans took over. I would vote to use any new revenue to pay down the debt the Republicans have been accumulating all these years.

If you’re an average Joe or Jane, busting your butt everyday, you pay 25% or 28%. So you’re paying almost double the tax rate as the big dogs. Fair and balanced? You tell me?

I'm an average joe, and I don't pay 35%, 28%, or even 15%. Itemizing deductions, a mortgage, and a kid or two (or 5 :) ) will knock that down in a real hurry.

And I agree on the national debt, I just don't agree that it was all republicans, considering the democrats have spent as much or more time in office. It isn't a one party problem, both parties being complicit in it.

maybe he's not making a distinction between state and federal. if you combine the two, it can be quite high. if you calculate all the state taxes and fees it's pretty shocking in most states.

i thought we were talking about federal taxes? if there is a problem with your state taxes, deal with your state.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Heck, I would gladly work for free for a ton of stock options. When that stock is then held for more than a year, they get taxed at 15% whereas the tax rate for “normal income” in that bracket is 35%.

Might not be a good choice. Stock options are only of value IF the value of the stock increases significantly before they expire. It's a risky proposition, especially in a volatile stock market.

For several years I worked for a large multi-national company that had a profit-sharing plan, where employees received yearly bonuses based on a formula tied to the company's profits. The company decided that instead of paying us real money, they'd give us stock options instead (value based on the Black-Scholes method). Those stock options never netted me a dime. Instead of being given profit-sharing checks, we were given a bunch of losing lottery tickets.

Indy you’re right, if the stock price doesn’t exceed the option strike price, then they are worthless. However the execs of mature companies have a MUCH different option plan than the worker bees. Their options are subsidized to a lower strike price and/or simply granted. Unless the stock really tanks, they still make their millions in bonus via the options. Even if the stock tanks, the execs may get their strike price reset to a lower value to “keep the valuable execs retained at company XYZ”.

The high techs and startups are a different beast than your mature companies. Most of those ventures are worthless until they get a IPO. Many have a negative cash flow. If they never get a IPO, then your options/shares are worthless and you’ve wasted a lot of time for nothing. If they do get the IPO, then you’ve made a ton of money. Congratulations. I’m happy for you; now just pay fair taxes on it.

Of coarse the bankers have their own little tricks for manipulating the price of IPO stocks (limit the float supply, hype, etc) for turning something worthless into 7 billion dollars. And, NO, I’m not against the 1%ers turning something worthless into 7 billion dollars, I’m against them only having to pay 15% taxes on that 7 billion!

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....